Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is mandatory and prohibits the institution of a suit against the Government or a public officer before the expiry of two months from the date of service of the notice.

CHANDURKAR J.-This is a plaintiff's appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, rejecting hill plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the suit filed by him was premature. The facts which gave rise to the suit filed by the plaintiff are not in dispute. House No.446 in Ward No. 18 was sold by the State for the purpose of rccovery of arrears of sales tax on 30-11-1963. The revenue recovery certificate for the recovery of Rs. 34,998.15 P. was received by the Tahsildar, Sales Tax Recovery, Nagpur on 27-12-1960 from the Sales Tai Department. The plaintiff claim that he purchased house No.446 on 9-12-1961 from defendants Nos. 4 to 8 by a registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs. 30,000. Original defendant No.4- Hussainbhai son of Mulla Taherali died during the pendency of the suit on 19-8-1964 and defendants Nos. 4 (a) to 4 (e) are his legal representatives. On 23-5-1962 the plaintiff raised an objection that the house purchased by him was not liable to be attached or sold. This objection was rejected by the Tahsildar on 8-7-1963. Before this objection was rejected, the plaintiff had again taken a similar objection on 9-5-1963 and on 13-5-1963 the Tahsildar rejected the objection holding that though house No. 446 in Ward No. 18 had already been attached, there was no sale proclamation in respect of the house and the objection of the objector had no force and it could be decided on merits if and when the sale proclamation was issued. Accordingly the sale proclamation was issued on 26-8-1963 and the plaintiff again filed an objection on 30-8-1963 stating that the property which was proclaimed to be sold was his and he was in possession, and since it was not attached it was not liable to be sold. He also alleged that if at all there was any attachment, the same was not valid being contrary to law. This objection was rejected on 13-9-1963. The sale of the house in dispute came to be held on 30-11-1963 and at the auction the bid for Rs. 10,250 by defendant No.3 Baliram was accepted. Baliram deposited the entire purchase price on 2-12-1963. On that date the Tahsildar directed that objections, if any were submitted within 30days, should be awaited and fixed the case for 2-1-1964. When the case was taken up on 2-1-1964 it was found that no objections were received and the sale was finally confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagpur, on 5-2-1964. After the auction sale was held on 30-11-1963 the plaintiff served a notice on 31-12-1963 on defendants Nos. 1 and 2, namely, the State of Maharashtra and-the Collector, Nagpur, under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure intimating to them his intention to file a suit for declaration of his right to the property in dispute. A similar notice was also served on defendant No.3. The exact date when this notice was received by either of the first two defendants cannot be ascertained but it is not disputed that the present suit was filed by the plaintiff on 24-2-1964 i.e. before the expiry of the period of two months provided by section 80, of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the plaint, the plaintiff has averred several facts referred to earlier leading to the rejection of his objection to the sale of the disputed house which he claimed to be his own and his case in the plaio1i is that no prohibitory order attaching the suit property was ever made as required by the provision, of the M. P. Land Revenue Code and the Rules framed there under; and if at all any such prohibitory order was made it was illegal and invalid and it was never affixed on a conspicuous part of the property and on the notice board of the office of the Tahsildar. According to the plaintiff, as the property was not attached before 9-12-1961 i.e. the date of the sale in his favour, the prohibitory order could not take effect against him as he was as purchaser for value and in good faith without notice of the recovery p